[Download] "Wayne L. Davis v. William Tant Et Al." by Supreme Court of Alaska # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Wayne L. Davis v. William Tant Et Al.
Author : Supreme Court of Alaska
Release Date : January 05, 1961
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 59 KB

Description

AREND, Justice. This is an action brought pursuant to the provisions of section 56-1-91, ACLA 1949 to determine adverse claims
to certain real property. The statute in question provides that 'Any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real
property, may maintain an action of an equitable nature against another who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to
him, for the purpose of determining such claim, estate, or interest.' On May 21, 1959, the appellant Davis, to whom we shall
refer herein as the plaintiff, filed his complaint in the District Court for the District (Territory) of Alaska, against six
named defendants and 'all other persons or parties unknown.' He alleged in the complaint that he is the owner and in possession
of seven lots of land in the Rosebud Subdivision of the Anchorage Recording District, Alaska, and that he has been in such
possession by himself and his predecessors in interest for more than ten years. He further alleged that the several defendants
claim interests in the lots adverse to himself and without any right whatever. In his prayer for relief he asked the court
to adJudge (1) that he has a good and valid title to the property; (2) that the defendants be forever barred from asserting
any claim in the property adverse to the plaintiff. The case came on for hearing on only one segment thereof. This concerned the defendant, Paul Whiteman, and lots four and
five of Block 'F' of the Rosebud Subdivision. It had been alleged in the complaint that Whiteman alone claimed an interest
in those two lots adverse to the plaintiff. The record discloses that a default had been entered against Whiteman on September
24, 1959, for his failure to plead or otherwise defend. On the same day, presumably after entry of the default, the plaintiff
appeared in court, Whiteman not appearing, and presented oral testimony by himself and his attorney as follows: